If I remember correctly, the reason Apple started shipping their own VM was that Sun wasn't doing it, or they were releasing a low-quality version.
You remember incorrectly. At the time Sun did not make any JVM except for Solaris. They were forcing the OS vendors to license the JVM. Then MS said OK, we'll embrace and extend it, Sun said no and MS did anyway, so they ended up in court. Sun decided to do a Windows JVM out of survival instinct.
With Linux Sun eventually decided suing the Blackdown team wouldn't be viable, so they just took the port in house. Apple and the other OS vendors are still having to pay to play with the JVM. I guess Apple thinks Oracle needs Java on OS X more then OS X needs Java to survive.
I'm not sure why we are getting way off topic about this. The facts are that Apple is no longer going to port the Java VM to the Mac. Jobs doesn't feel like this responsibility should be Apple's anymore citing that Sun/Oracle produces the JVM for Windows, Linux, and Solaris. Sun/Oracles position has been that it should be up to the platform owner to port the JVM. Sun/Oracle owns Solaris, that explains why they do that one. The Linux market was very fragmented in the old days and if Sun didn't do the port it wouldn't have gotten done. Let's see, HP does the port to HP/UX and IBM does the port to AIX. Oh, and Microsoft did the original port or the JVM to Windows (and yes, Sun sued MS and won because their JVM wasn't compliant per their contract and took over control of the JVM ports so Microsoft wouldn't mess it up anymore).
I know that when most people think of Java, they will bring up "slow, ugly GUIs." For me as a web developer, I think of Java as a very robust server side language. I've been using my Mac for 10+ years to develop Java backends and having a usable Java implementation is crucial for my work. In fact, there have been many people in my office over the past couple of years that have converted over to Macs because of the ability to do Java programming.
The worry here is that nobody steps up to fill a void that Apple has created by stopping the port of the JVM. If this is the case, Java developers will be forced to stop using the Mac for developing applications. Since I have a Mac, it is easy for me to tinker with writing native software for the Mac and even the iPhone. If I am forced to leave the platform, then I would stop the tinkering (as I guess would happen with many other Java developers). And that is my concern, the loss of developers because of this decision.
The only OSes that Sun made JVMs for are the OSes that Sun sold on Sun-branded hardware. Sun/Oracle sells machines that run Solaris, Windows, and Linux. Every OS that Sun doesn't sell, somebody other than Sun makes the JVM.
So, is Apple planning to license OS X to Sun/Oracle for Sun/Oracle-made Mac clones? No? Then don't expect a Sun/Oracle JVM for OS X. Sun/Oracle doesn't make or maintain the JVMs for HP-UX, OpenVMS, Tru64, Reliant UNIX, AIX, MVS, OS/400, z/OS, FreeBSD, or any other OS that doesn't ship on Sun hardware.
The only OSes that Sun made JVMs for are the OSes that Sun sold on Sun-branded hardware. Sun/Oracle sells machines that run Solaris, Windows, and Linux. Every OS that Sun doesn't sell, somebody other than Sun makes the JVM.
So, is Apple planning to license OS X to Sun/Oracle for Sun/Oracle-made Mac clones? No? Then don't expect a Sun/Oracle JVM for OS X. Sun/Oracle doesn't make or maintain the JVMs for HP-UX, OpenVMS, Tru64, Reliant UNIX, AIX, MVS, OS/400, z/OS, FreeBSD, or any other OS that doesn't ship on Sun hardware.
Looking at Oracle’s java.com download site the only major OS that doesn’t have downloads is Mac OS X. Why you brought up these other OSes escapes me. I get your point in regards to machines that run the listed OSes download site, but why list the others in your second paragraph. Why not state that because Mac OS X isn’t licensed to run on their HW that they probably won’t develop a JVM for Mac OS X?
Looking at Oracle’s java.com download site the only major OS that doesn’t have downloads is Mac OS X. Why you brought up these other OSes escapes me. I get your point in regards to machines that run the listed OSes download site, but why list the others in your second paragraph. Why not state that because Mac OS X isn’t licensed to run on their HW that they probably won’t develop a JVM for Mac OS X?
OS X is hardly "major" platform. Linux has 50% of server market share. Windows has 90% of desktop market share.
Other minor platforms like HPUX, AIX or AS/400 make their own JDKs. Apple is a minor irrelevant platform when it cames to desktop or server, and they made their own JDK as well. Now they don't any more, abandoning their clueless users.
OS X is hardly "major" platform. Linux has 50% of server market share. Windows has 90% of desktop market share.
Other minor platforms like HPUX, AIX or AS/400 make their own JDKs. Apple is a minor irrelevant platform when it cames to desktop or server, and they made their own JDK as well. Now they don't any more, abandoning their clueless users.
Why is there not one damned JDK for all platforms? Are we talking about virtual machines, or the development kit?
Apple would not and cannot kill Java. Java powers WebObjects. WebObjects powers iTunes, the Apple Store and Mobile Me. Unless Apple plans on running those services on another OS, they need to ensure that a top-notch JVM exists for OSX. I really doubt that they are rewriting WebObjects back to Objective-C, as they moved WebObjects from Objective-C to Java in 2001. Even more questionable would be a rewrite of all of their tools to something other than WO on Java. With the scale that these Apple sites are reaching, would it really make sense to abandon Java and go it on your own with a less-proven framework?
Comments
If I remember correctly, the reason Apple started shipping their own VM was that Sun wasn't doing it, or they were releasing a low-quality version.
You remember incorrectly. At the time Sun did not make any JVM except for Solaris. They were forcing the OS vendors to license the JVM. Then MS said OK, we'll embrace and extend it, Sun said no and MS did anyway, so they ended up in court. Sun decided to do a Windows JVM out of survival instinct.
With Linux Sun eventually decided suing the Blackdown team wouldn't be viable, so they just took the port in house. Apple and the other OS vendors are still having to pay to play with the JVM. I guess Apple thinks Oracle needs Java on OS X more then OS X needs Java to survive.
I know that when most people think of Java, they will bring up "slow, ugly GUIs." For me as a web developer, I think of Java as a very robust server side language. I've been using my Mac for 10+ years to develop Java backends and having a usable Java implementation is crucial for my work. In fact, there have been many people in my office over the past couple of years that have converted over to Macs because of the ability to do Java programming.
The worry here is that nobody steps up to fill a void that Apple has created by stopping the port of the JVM. If this is the case, Java developers will be forced to stop using the Mac for developing applications. Since I have a Mac, it is easy for me to tinker with writing native software for the Mac and even the iPhone. If I am forced to leave the platform, then I would stop the tinkering (as I guess would happen with many other Java developers). And that is my concern, the loss of developers because of this decision.
So, is Apple planning to license OS X to Sun/Oracle for Sun/Oracle-made Mac clones? No? Then don't expect a Sun/Oracle JVM for OS X. Sun/Oracle doesn't make or maintain the JVMs for HP-UX, OpenVMS, Tru64, Reliant UNIX, AIX, MVS, OS/400, z/OS, FreeBSD, or any other OS that doesn't ship on Sun hardware.
The only OSes that Sun made JVMs for are the OSes that Sun sold on Sun-branded hardware. Sun/Oracle sells machines that run Solaris, Windows, and Linux. Every OS that Sun doesn't sell, somebody other than Sun makes the JVM.
So, is Apple planning to license OS X to Sun/Oracle for Sun/Oracle-made Mac clones? No? Then don't expect a Sun/Oracle JVM for OS X. Sun/Oracle doesn't make or maintain the JVMs for HP-UX, OpenVMS, Tru64, Reliant UNIX, AIX, MVS, OS/400, z/OS, FreeBSD, or any other OS that doesn't ship on Sun hardware.
Looking at Oracle’s java.com download site the only major OS that doesn’t have downloads is Mac OS X. Why you brought up these other OSes escapes me. I get your point in regards to machines that run the listed OSes download site, but why list the others in your second paragraph. Why not state that because Mac OS X isn’t licensed to run on their HW that they probably won’t develop a JVM for Mac OS X?
Looking at Oracle’s java.com download site the only major OS that doesn’t have downloads is Mac OS X. Why you brought up these other OSes escapes me. I get your point in regards to machines that run the listed OSes download site, but why list the others in your second paragraph. Why not state that because Mac OS X isn’t licensed to run on their HW that they probably won’t develop a JVM for Mac OS X?
OS X is hardly "major" platform. Linux has 50% of server market share. Windows has 90% of desktop market share.
Other minor platforms like HPUX, AIX or AS/400 make their own JDKs. Apple is a minor irrelevant platform when it cames to desktop or server, and they made their own JDK as well. Now they don't any more, abandoning their clueless users.
OS X is hardly "major" platform. Linux has 50% of server market share. Windows has 90% of desktop market share.
Other minor platforms like HPUX, AIX or AS/400 make their own JDKs. Apple is a minor irrelevant platform when it cames to desktop or server, and they made their own JDK as well. Now they don't any more, abandoning their clueless users.
Why is there not one damned JDK for all platforms? Are we talking about virtual machines, or the development kit?